Wilson-Raybould, Trudeau, and SNC-Lavalin

427 posts / 0 new
Last post
epaulo13 epaulo13's picture

1877 cartoon of John A Macdonald seeking re-election after voters tossed him from office for the Pacific Scandal. Corruption and theft for profit and power is in the DNA of Confederation.

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

Puglaas was bound by Cabinet confidentiality and Solicitor client privilege. This Order in Counsel is specific to her being able to speak freely about her time as AG in relation to SNC. Please Unionist read the highlighted portion and leave quizzical alone. She has it right, Puglaas was only exempted for a specific period not for her whole time in cabinet.

a) authorizes the Honourable Jody Wilson-Raybould, the former Attorney General, and any persons who directly participated in discussions with her relating to the exercise of her authority under the Director of Public Prosecutions Actrespecting the prosecution of SNC-Lavalin, to disclose to the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights and to the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner any confidences of the Queen’s Privy Council for Canada contained in any information or communications that were directly discussed with her respecting the exercise of that authority while she held that office; and

NDPP

A friend of a friend with Ottawa connections told me she may not have been onboard with Trudeau on the Meng Wanzhou matter either. If anyone comes across anything related to this, please post.

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

This article gives a slightly different take on SNC. This firm is the epitome of corporatism in our political sphere. We need infrastructure but we keep getting saddled with projects and contracts that go against economic and financial studies.  The same lobbyists that had the PMO on Puglass's case are the ones who have sold politicians in Ottawa, Victoria and Quebec City on P3 projects that are thinly disguised corporate theft of the public purse. The problem we have in Canada is that most people buy the lie that Canada is a democracy and that the people's best interests are what drives public policy.

SNC-Lavalin has been one of the principal engineering firms behind the Site C Dam from the outset—the dam that sound economics, science, logic, communities, professionals, First Nations, scholars, international organizations (UN), and good public policy seem incapable of even slowing down.

https://www.straight.com/news/1207651/wendy-holm-connecting-dots-snc-lav...

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

Here is a CPAC interview with another woman who has had the courage to speak truth to power. Mary Ellen Turpel-Lafond was the Representative for Children and Youth, an independent position reporting to the BC Legislative Assembly. I think her insights are very relevant given her personal background. She was known for delivering blistering reports on the dismal performance of the BC government in its care of children.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sra6066Vk9k&fbclid=IwAR3DoeaKrl4rppPfiW_...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_Ellen_Turpel-Lafond

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

Pondering here is a good little video that agrees that the crooks should be held responsible instead of being shuffled to another corporation like a pedophile priest. Watch until it gets to Trudeau his body language was off, even before she appeared at the Justice Committee.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RjU9N1kqElQ

 

 

Unionist

kropotkin1951 wrote:

Puglaas was bound by Cabinet confidentiality and Solicitor client privilege. This Order in Counsel is specific to her being able to speak freely about her time as AG in relation to SNC. Please Unionist read the highlighted portion and leave quizzical alone. She has it right, Puglaas was only exempted for a specific period not for her whole time in cabinet.

Sorry, krop. I respect your legal expertise and all. But on the question: "Why did you resign from cabinet when you did? Why didn't you choose to resign when you were demoted? Why didn't you resign when you were being bullied?" etc. - no law, no privilege, nothing at all prevents her from giving her reasons, her feelings, her thoughts, her motivations. What she can't do is disclose communications, documents, etc. that may be covered by that privilege or confidentiality. If I'm wrong, kindly cite me chapter and verse so that I can understand what you're saying.

Pogo Pogo's picture

I was listening to her testimony and she made a clear point that she could not provide details on her time as Veteran Affairs Minister.

Unionist

Pogo wrote:

I was listening to her testimony and she made a clear point that she could not provide details on her time as Veteran Affairs Minister.

Sorry, that makes absolutely no sense. She wrote a letter, and made it public, talking about her time as VA minister and her resignation. Did you read it?

Yes, I get that she can't disclose confidential cabinet matters, or solicitor-client matters, from her time as VA Minister?But that is not even close to the issue I'm raising. Why did she choose to remain in cabinet? And then why did she choose to leave? That's about her feelings, her motives, her rationale. 

NorthReport
NorthReport

.

NorthReport
NorthReport
NorthReport
NorthReport
NorthReport
Pogo Pogo's picture

Unionist wrote:

Pogo wrote:

I was listening to her testimony and she made a clear point that she could not provide details on her time as Veteran Affairs Minister.

Sorry, that makes absolutely no sense. She wrote a letter, and made it public, talking about her time as VA minister and her resignation. Did you read it?

Yes, I get that she can't disclose confidential cabinet matters, or solicitor-client matters, from her time as VA Minister?But that is not even close to the issue I'm raising. Why did she choose to remain in cabinet? And then why did she choose to leave? That's about her feelings, her motives, her rationale. 

Which are based on conversations and actions that she cannot reveal

Pogo Pogo's picture

from her testimony:

The order in council leaves in place the various constraints, in particular cabinet confidence, that there are on my ability to speak freely on matters that occurred after I left my post as attorney general.

NorthReport
NorthReport
NorthReport
NorthReport
NDPP

NorthReport wrote:

Murphy sure knows how to write

https://nationalpost.com/opinion/rex-murphy-the-trudeau-virtuecrats-come-tumbling-down

NDPP wrote:

Not bad for a right-winger:

"...Mr Trudeau is its brand and the brand is everything. This is a government of virtuecrats, or it is nothing. That's the problem. Live by the image, die by the image. Play by the symbol, fall by the symbol."

The political technique of selling surface over substance is not restricted to the Liberals and is particularly effective upon Canadians who mistake the one for the other. In any case, Trudeau is now a dead brand/symbol walking. And hopefully for not very much longer. I have a strong stomach but I can no longer bear to see his face.

bekayne

https://vancouversun.com/news/local-news/exclusive-jody-wilson-raybould-...

The former attorney general said she plans to run for re-election in the fall under the Liberal banner in Vancouver Granville.

NorthReport

JWR wants to be PM No one apart from the usual misleading pundits expected her to leave the Liberals which is obviously the best place for her to be with her political ambitions

https://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/jody-wilson-raybould-justin-trudeau-liberals/

lagatta4

If a reader does have poor eyesight, he or she can make the text larger; I have a friend who is legally blind who has a device to convert print text online into voiced text.

Unionist

lagatta4 wrote:

If a reader does have poor eyesight, he or she can make the text larger; I have a friend who is legally blind who has a device to convert print text online into voiced text.

Lagatta. Respectful suggestion. When you're commenting on someone's post, please "quote" it or part of it, or say what you're commenting on. Otherwise it's like a wild-goose chase. What exactly are you talking about???????

Unionist

Pogo wrote:

Unionist wrote:

Pogo wrote:

I was listening to her testimony and she made a clear point that she could not provide details on her time as Veteran Affairs Minister.

Sorry, that makes absolutely no sense. She wrote a letter, and made it public, talking about her time as VA minister and her resignation. Did you read it?

Yes, I get that she can't disclose confidential cabinet matters, or solicitor-client matters, from her time as VA Minister?But that is not even close to the issue I'm raising. Why did she choose to remain in cabinet? And then why did she choose to leave? That's about her feelings, her motives, her rationale. 

Which are based on conversations and actions that she cannot reveal

I asked whether you read her resignation letter. Did you? If yes, how does that jibe with what you just said? If not, are you interested?

I actually think it's time to call a small amount of bullshit on her allegedly being muzzled. She showed a great deal of boldness and principle in her testimony. If she were now to say, "Listen, I'm just going to tell all, confidentiality be damned" - who exactly do you think would have the nerve to jail her, disbar her, fine her, whatever? I seriously don't understand why she doesn't just talk.

Meanwhile, nothing (I re-emphasize, nothing) prevents her from saying why she felt like staying on as VA minister for a month, then why she felt like resigning. She explained the latter in her letter. I just don't understand her explanation, and I was wondering whether anyone else did. She could say: "Because of some further conversations that I can't reveal, I had to resign." Will they lock her up for that?

By the way, is she allowed to answer "why are you remaining in caucus"? I think this "confidentiality" stuff has really outlived its credibility.

NDPP

More on SNC-L

Canada's Corrupt Foreign Policy Comes Home to Roost

https://twitter.com/JohnOCAP/status/1102214590413201409

"As the Ugly Canadian goes about the work of global plunder, SNC Lavalin is one of its most repulsive expressions..."

Pondering

Trudeau, just like Harper, doesn't need his boy scout image now. That was 2015. 

2019 will be about the child tax credit and the trade deals and the economy and apparently he has made progress on bringing water to indigenous communities. He only needs one win on that file. Indigenous communities knows they won't fare better under Harper.

Pogo Pogo's picture

Unionist wrote:
Sorry, that makes absolutely no sense. She wrote a letter, and made it public, talking about her time as VA minister and her resignation. Did you read it?

I asked whether you read her resignation letter. Did you? If yes, how does that jibe with what you just said? If not, are you interested?aucus"? I think this "confidentiality" stuff has really outlived its credibility.

I don't understand the importance of this topic at all.  She left some gap and is insinuating that without breaking confidences she cannot provide a clear picture.  Yes I read the letter at the time of resignation and just read it again and I don't know what great secret you are seeing being hid.

Unionist

Pogo wrote:

I don't understand the importance of this topic at all.

I didn't say it was important. I said I had questions which I can't answer, and I was wondering whether anyone had an opinion on that.

Quote:

She left some gap and is insinuating that without breaking confidences she cannot provide a clear picture.

Where did she insinuate that, exactly?

 

Quote:

Yes I read the letter at the time of resignation and just read it again and I don't know what great secret you are seeing being hid.

I'm not claiming there's any great secret. It's you, and others, that have chided me for allegedly not understanding that she is somehow forbidden from speaking about some things.

Let me reiterate some of my questions. If you don't think they're important, that's certainly your prerogative. But given her unsolicited foray into the public eye, I dare to believe she either owes us some more information, or else a clear explanation as to why she believes she can't supply it.

1. Why didn't she resign her AG position (at least) when the bullying and pressure began - in September?

2. Why didn't she resign when she was removed from AG/Justice?

3. Why did she resign a month later?

4. Why is she remaining in caucus?

5. Why has she stated her intention to run again in October as a Liberal (which, by the way, she cannot do without the express sign-off of the leader, under the Canada Elections Act)?

I don't get any of this. If no one else is curious, I guess it's just me.

swallow swallow's picture

1. Why didn't she resign her AG position (at least) when the bullying and pressure began - in September?

All the more reason to stay on and resist the pressure, I'd think. 

Unionist

swallow wrote:

1. Why didn't she resign her AG position (at least) when the bullying and pressure began - in September?

All the more reason to stay on and resist the pressure, I'd think. 

Lol. That was the easiest question. Now the others.

swallow swallow's picture

Any answer would be pure speculation, yes? 

I just don't like the "why didn't you resign when pressured" line from many Liberals. 

Unionist

swallow wrote:

Any answer would be pure speculation, yes? 

I just don't like the "why didn't you resign when pressured" line from many Liberals. 

My question is - having revealed so much, why doesn't she just answer these questions? Like - why did you resign, exactly? Or, why are you still in the Liberal caucus? Or, why are you declaring that you'll run again as a Liberal? I seriously don't get it. It's not a challenge to her. It's wanting to know the whole story, about who she is and what makes her tick. At this point in time, I don't think privacy is much of an answer.

Pogo Pogo's picture

At her testimony she directly spoke of the restrictions limiting her ability to be full and frank.  There are multipe scenarios that I can come up with where this is the case.  Say she stayed until she hit a wall, but she cannot discuss the wall. JWR has advertized that she is stickler for legal rules, so she is not going to break the rules and defy authorities to go after her - it would damage her brand for starters.

I am done with this lunacy.

NDPP

"I think the Clerk of the Privy Council should be fired,' said Green Party Leader Elizabeth May, saying he was used in a partisan way.' - CTV (vid)

https://twitter.com/ctvqp/status/1102252488265093120

epaulo13 epaulo13's picture

Canada’s corrupt foreign policy practices come home to roost on Parliament Hill

Justin Trudeau’s government is engulfed in a major political scandal that lays bare the role of corporate power in Ottawa. But SNC Lavalin’s important role in Canadian foreign policy has largely been ignored in discussion of the controversy.

quote:

Incredibly, Trudeau went to bat for SNC after the firm had either been found guilty or was alleged to have greased palms in Libya, Bangladesh, Algeria, India, Kazakhstan, Tunisia, Angola, Nigeria, Mozambique, Ghana, Malawi, Uganda, Cambodia and Zambia (as well as Québec). A 2013 CBC/Globe & Mail investigation of a small Oakville, Ontario-based division of SNC uncovered suspicious payments to government officials in connection with 13 international development projects. In each case between five and 10 per cent of costs were recorded as “‘project consultancy cost,’ sometimes ‘project commercial cost,’ but [the] real fact is the intention is [a] bribe,” a former SNC engineer, Mohammad Ismail, told the CBC.

While the media has covered the company’s corruption and lobbying for a deferred prosecution agreement, they have barely mentioned SNC’s global importance or influence over Canadian foreign policy. Canada’s preeminent “disaster capitalist” corporation, SNC has worked on projects in most countries around the world. From constructing Canada’s Embassy in Haiti to Chinese nuclear centres, to military camps in Afghanistan and pharmaceutical factories in Belgium, the sun never sets on SNC.

Its work has often quite controversial. SNC constructed and managed Canada’s main military base in Kandahar during the war there; SNC Technologies Inc provided bullets to US occupation forces in Iraq; SNC has billions of dollars in contracts with the monarchy in Saudi Arabia.

Across the globe SNC promotes neoliberal reforms. The company greatly benefits from governments shifting to public-private partnerships. SNC is also a member or sponsor of the Canadian Council on Africa, Canadian Council for the Americas, Canada-ASEAN business council, Conseil des Relations Internationales de Montréal and other foreign policy lobby/discussion groups.

SNC has been one of the largest corporate recipients of Canadian “aid.” The company has had entire departments dedicated to applying for Canadian International Development Agency (CIDA), UN and World Bank funded projects. SNC’s first international contract, in 1963 in India, was financed by Canadian aid and led to further work in that country. In the late 1960s the firm was hired to manage CIDA offices in African countries where Canada had no diplomatic representation. In the late 1980s CIDA contracted SNC to produce a feasibility study for the Three Gorges Dam, which displaced more than a million Chinese. During the occupation of Afghanistan CIDA contracted SNC to carry out its $50 million “signature project” to repair the Dahla dam on the Arghandab River in Kandahar province ($10 million was spent on private security for the dam).

cco

Jane Philpott resigns from cabinet, saying she can't defend the government on the SNC-Lavalin file anymore.

Pondering

cco wrote:
Jane Philpott resigns from cabinet, saying she can't defend the government on the SNC-Lavalin file anymore.

Yup. This is amazing. The situation just went critical. In my opinion this is about more than just SNC-Lavelin. That they are both leaving cabinet but remaining in caucus makes me wonder if there is a coup in the offing. As I understand our system, The House of Commons "elects" the PM. That is, if Trudeau loses the confidence of the house the house can choose someone else to support even if Trudeau remains the leader of the party.

I know, unlikely, but oh my it would be exciting. 

JKR

Pondering wrote:

cco wrote:
Jane Philpott resigns from cabinet, saying she can't defend the government on the SNC-Lavalin file anymore.

Yup. This is amazing. The situation just went critical. In my opinion this is about more than just SNC-Lavelin. That they are both leaving cabinet but remaining in caucus makes me wonder if there is a coup in the offing. As I understand our system, The House of Commons "elects" the PM. That is, if Trudeau loses the confidence of the house the house can choose someone else to support even if Trudeau remains the leader of the party.

I know, unlikely, but oh my it would be exciting. 

More importantly the PM has to maintain the confidence of their party caucus. I wouldn’t be surprised if Trudeau resigns and is replaced by another member of the Liberal caucus. The Liberals even have enough time to hold a leadership convention before the next election.

Unionist

Pondering wrote:

As I understand our system, The House of Commons "elects" the PM.

Wrong. The House has no say in the matter. In "normal" situations, the PM is the leader of the party which forms the government. S/he is appointed by the governor-general, based on the latter's estimation of which party has the confidence of the House. The PM need not be a member of Parliament.

Quote:

That is, if Trudeau loses the confidence of the house the house can choose someone else to support even if Trudeau remains the leader of the party.

Trudeau can't lose the confidence of the House (if he ever had it!), and the House has no say. It's up to the party, which would then normally be rubber-stamped by the G-G.

Quote:

I know, unlikely, but oh my it would be exciting. 

Have to agree with that.

Martin N.

Pondering wrote:

cco wrote:
Jane Philpott resigns from cabinet, saying she can't defend the government on the SNC-Lavalin file anymore.

Yup. This is amazing. The situation just went critical. In my opinion this is about more than just SNC-Lavelin. That they are both leaving cabinet but remaining in caucus makes me wonder if there is a coup in the offing. As I understand our system, The House of Commons "elects" the PM. That is, if Trudeau loses the confidence of the house the house can choose someone else to support even if Trudeau remains the leader of the party.

I know, unlikely, but oh my it would be exciting. 

Trudeau's head on a pike is the likely outcome of this putsch. It will serve the phoney feminist right if the 50% women in his cabinet toss him. My only request is that the girls tuck Brison under one arm and Sidhu under the other when they punt Boy Blunder.

Pondering

As I understand our system, any MP that has the confidence of the house can approach the GG and offer themselves as PM. That is usually the leader of the party with the most seats but it doesn't have to be. 

Noops

Not the most eloquent of speakers, but then neither is Turdeau.
She makes all the important points in this scandal, and this was published a day before Jody Wilson-Raybould's testimony!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K4Vx6kmfutc

JKR

Pondering wrote:

As I understand our system, any MP that has the confidence of the house can approach the GG and offer themselves as PM. That is usually the leader of the party with the most seats but it doesn't have to be. 

I think Trudeau has to offer his resignation to the GG or lose a vote of confidence in the House before the GG can appoint another PM.

cco

Upon losing a vote of confidence, convention is that the PM either resigns or asks for a new election. No Canadian PM has ever been directly shitcanned by a GG (King-Byng being the closest, with the refusal of an early election), though it's happened in Australia.

Pondering

I was countering these statements

Unionist wrote:

Wrong. The House has no say in the matter. In "normal" situations, the PM is the leader of the party which forms the government. S/he is appointed by the governor-general, based on the latter's estimation of which party has the confidence of the House. The PM need not be a member of Parliament....

Trudeau can't lose the confidence of the House (if he ever had it!), and the House has no say. It's up to the party, which would then normally be rubber-stamped by the G-G.

https://www.ourcommons.ca/About/Compendium/ParliamentaryFramework/c_d_ro...

The Governor General is responsible for the appointment of the Prime Minister. In practice, he or she must appoint the leader of the party winning the most seats in the House of Commons in a general election. The Governor General does, however, have some discretion when the governing party is in a minority position in Parliament and loses the confidence of the House.

The key point is that the PM, or person asking to be appointed PM, must have the confidence of the house. Normally that would be the party with the most seats but it doesn't have to be. The Conservatives could win 40%, The Liberals and NDP 19% each and independents/others 12%. Rather than having either the Liberal or NDP leader take the throne the "others" could propose an independent become PM. 

The House of Commons may not elect the PM but the PM requires the confidence of the house to form government. Conventionally that is the leader of the party that won the most seats but it isn't a rule. 

JKR

Pondering wrote:

I was countering these statements

Unionist wrote:

Wrong. The House has no say in the matter. In "normal" situations, the PM is the leader of the party which forms the government. S/he is appointed by the governor-general, based on the latter's estimation of which party has the confidence of the House. The PM need not be a member of Parliament....

Trudeau can't lose the confidence of the House (if he ever had it!), and the House has no say. It's up to the party, which would then normally be rubber-stamped by the G-G.

https://www.ourcommons.ca/About/Compendium/ParliamentaryFramework/c_d_ro...

The Governor General is responsible for the appointment of the Prime Minister. In practice, he or she must appoint the leader of the party winning the most seats in the House of Commons in a general election. The Governor General does, however, have some discretion when the governing party is in a minority position in Parliament and loses the confidence of the House.

The key point is that the PM, or person asking to be appointed PM, must have the confidence of the house. Normally that would be the party with the most seats but it doesn't have to be. The Conservatives could win 40%, The Liberals and NDP 19% each and independents/others 12%. Rather than having either the Liberal or NDP leader take the throne the "others" could propose an independent become PM. 

The House of Commons may not elect the PM but the PM requires the confidence of the house to form government. Conventionally that is the leader of the party that won the most seats but it isn't a rule. 

Do you think the GG would replace Trudeau  without Trudeau resigning first?!?!?!?

Pages